DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Victory For Gay Marriage

Supreme Court strikes down DOMA; rules it interferes with states, ‘dignity’ of same-sex marriages
By Liz Goodwin, Yahoo! News | Yahoo! News – 58 mins ago

The Supreme Court has struck down a federal law barring the recognition of same-sex marriage in a split decision, ruling that the law violates the rights of gays and lesbians and intrudes into states' rights to define and regulate marriage. The court also dismissed a challenge to California's gay marriage ban, ruling that supporters of the ban did not have the legal standing, or right, to appeal a lower court's decision striking down Proposition 8 and clearing the way for gay marriage to again be legal in the nation's most populous state.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court's conservative-leaning swing vote with a legal history of supporting gay rights, joined his liberal colleagues in both decisions, which will dramatically expand the rights of married gay couples in the country to access more than 1,000 federal benefits and responsibilities of marriage previously denied them.
"The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here in question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States," Kennedy wrote of DOMA. He concluded that states must be allowed by the federal government to confer "dignity" on same-sex couples if they choose to legalize gay marriage.
DOMA "undermines" same-sex marriages in visible ways and "tells those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition."
The case is Windsor v. United States, a challenge to the federal 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages even in the 12 states and District of Columbia that allow them. DOMA extended to more than 1,000 federal laws and statutes, including immigration, taxes, and Social Security benefits.
Eighty-three-year-old New Yorker Edith Windsor brought the suit after she was made to pay more than $363,000 in estate taxes when her same-sex spouse died. If the federal government had recognized her marriage, Windsor would not have owed the sum. She argued that the government has no rational reason to exclude her marriage of more than four decades from the benefits and obligations other married couples receive.
DOMA was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996.
With this decision, Kennedy furthers his reputation as a champion of gay rights. He authored two of the most important Supreme Court decisions involving, and ultimately affirming, gay rights: Lawrence v. Texas (2003) and Romer v. Evans (1996). In Romer, Kennedy struck down Colorado's constitutional amendment banning localities from passing anti-discrimination laws protecting gays and lesbians. In Lawrence, Kennedy invalidated state anti-sodomy laws, ruling that gay people have a right to engage in sexual behavior in their own homes.
The decisions mark the first time the highest court has waded into the issue of same-sex marriage. Just 40 years ago, the Supreme Court tersely refused to hear a case brought by a gay couple who wanted to get married in Minnesota, writing that that their claim raised no significant legal issue. At the time, legal opinions often treated homosexuality as criminal, sexually deviant behavior rather than involuntary sexual orientation. Since then, public opinion has changed dramatically on gay people and same-sex marriage, with a majority of Americans only just recently saying they support it. Now, 12 states representing about 18 percent of the U.S. population allow same-sex marriage. With California, the percentage of people living in gay marriage states shoots up to 30.
The Supreme Court has refused to wade into the constitutional issues surrounding the California gay marriage case, dismissing the Proposition 8 argument on procedural grounds. The legal dodge means a lower court's ruling making same-sex marriage legal in California will most likely stand, opening the door to marriage to gays and lesbians in the country's most populous state.
California voters passed Proposition 8 to ban same-sex marriage in 2008, after 18,000 same-sex couples had already tied the knot under a state Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage. A same-sex married couple with children, Kris Perry and Sandy Stier, sued the state of California when their six-month-old marriage was invalidated by the ballot initiative. They argued that Proposition 8 discriminated against them and their union based only on their sexual orientation, and that the state had no rational reason for denying them the right to marry. Two lower courts ruled in their favor, and then-California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced he would no longer defend Proposition 8 in court, leaving a coalition of Prop 8 supporters led by a former state legislator to take up its defense.
Same-sex marriage will most likely not be immediately legal in California, since the losing side is given a few weeks to petition the courts.
The Prop 8 case was argued by two high-profile lawyers, Ted Olson and David Boies, who previously faced off against each other in Bush v. Gore. Olson, a conservative and Bush's former solicitor general, and Boies, a liberal, have cast gay marriage as the civil rights issue of our time. Olson made the argument that gay marriage should be a conservative cause in an interview with NPR. "If you are a conservative, how could you be against a relationship in which people who love one another want to publicly state their vows ... and engage in a household in which they are committed to one another and become part of the community and accepted like other people?"
The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), a coalition of mostly Republican House lawmakers, defended DOMA since the Obama administration announced they believed the law was unconstitutional in 2011. (Chief Justice John Roberts criticized the president for this move during oral arguments in the case, saying the president lacked “the courage of his convictions” in continuing to enforce the law but no longer defending it in court.)

Very happy to see this. One step to a road that sees equality.

Kennedy knocked it out of the park.

Quote:

---

“The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity," Justice Kennedy wrote. “By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.”

---

Prop 8 could also be considered a win for gay marriage advocates, but I'd guess the decision leaves doors open for anti-gay marriage advocates to still fight.

I'm for gay marriage for the simple reason that I believe in the separation of church and state.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...."


People are against gay marriage for one reason, their religious beliefs. And that's more than fine. However, your religious beliefs do not belong in politics.


But, I really wish straight people would stop using the "It doesn't even affect you if they can get married!" argument. You're right. It doesn't. But it also doesn't affect YOU if they can't.

It's just a lazy argument that is really annoying.

Unless you have a conscience...

So your point then becomes that your "conscience" to allow gay marriage becomes more important than someones religious beliefs to be against it.

Like I said, I'm for it.

But the "It doesn't affect you!" is a very lazy argument.

Great news!

Since several of them are listening, what would be your direct response to such individuals, who prefer attack over rational discourse?

Quote:

---

However, your religious beliefs do not belong in politics.

---

Why does it matter where your beliefs come from if, in the end, they are your beliefs? If the Bible tells me something and I choose to believe it... and your parents tell you something and you choose to believe it... why are your beliefs more valid and worthy of political discussion than my beliefs?

I never said you can't be against it due to your religious beliefs. I just said I am for it due to the separation of church and state.

You're free to believe whatever you'd like, and you're free to express that opinion as it relates to politics. I just PERSONALLY am for gay marriage due to the fact that I believe in the separation of church and state.

That's all.

Quote:

---

there is indeed a rational argument to be made against the institutionalization of gay marriage.

---

What would that be ?

Really?

Seems to me those "freedom loving, fair-minded people" were awfully quick to shout "bigot!".

There were a bunch of them, too.

Or is it that anyone who disagrees with this policy is automatically not freedom loving and fair-minded?

Sorry, but I don't get into labeling everyone due to the actions of a few. There are extremists on both sides of almost every argument. You seem to be a good bit like those you criticize.

Yep, I think it's a good day. Let freedom ring.

Shall I describe, again, the reasons I am against this policy?

Or would all you "fair-minded" folks like to save us all some time and just start shouting "bigot!" right now?

All the terms and traditions of our current marriages are based on pagan and medieval culture. Everything from the bride wearing white to the concept of ushers and best men. Even the side the Groom stands on is specific because it was easier to draw his sword without hurting his bride from that part of the aisle. Even the sawing of the log in german and breaking plates in greek culture fall back to more pagan beliefs.

Does it irk you that Pagans celebrate Christmas?

There's nothing "traditional" about marriage in the form of it only being between one man and one woman. There's many citations that the Bible condoned polygamy.

Monagamy is relatively a young institution.

I see the term "seperation of Church and State" here alot...but aren;t we JUST talking about state here. Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't this case about same-sex couples not getting LEGAL rights? Hence, I thought the case was just about the legal side of marriage, not the religious side.

In Canada, gay marriage is legal but individuals can choose to NOT marry people. This can include members of the clergy. My understanding is that you can;t force a religious institution to marry people as now you really are mucking with a seperation of Church and State. I assume that's the way it would play out down there as well.

I'm all for whoever wants to get married to get married and their legal rights should absolutely be the same as a straight couple. However, I don't think religious officials should be compelled to marry a couple that may violate the tenets of their religion. I can;t see gay couples being all that upset with that as they likely wouldn't want to be part of a religion that denounces their way of life anyways.

You pretty much hit the nail on the head, as far as I'm concerned.

My whole point in bringing up separation of church and state, was exactly that. It's being banned due to the religious views on it.

Now if it becomes legal, I also have no problem with a church refusing to marry a gay couple.

This is about the legal aspect of gay marriage, not the morality of it.

It's a changing world my man.....maybe for the better, maybe for the worse. Time will tell that tale.


In the end, I don't really care as it really doesn't impact me, but it does impact some....mostly homosexuals.


Love is hard to find. If one has the inclination towards a homosexual relationship, and they find their love there, then I can't argue against it. It doesn't mean I agree with it. I acknowledge it. I know two gay couples. Two women who Ilike and two men who I like. Maybe others I don't know about. At any rate, it's not my job to judge them, or preach to them. It's my job as a Christian to accept them and love. That is what God wants me to do....I have finally figured that out. If what they are doing is a total sin, well, God will let them know soon enough.


Oh....Pat and I went to Plains, Georgia to attend church with President Carter and the First Lady last Sunday. He teaches Sunday Scool for a hour before the service. It was wonderful. They sat directly behind us. In the reception line for photo's after the service, they noted sitting behind us and we chatted a good 45 seconds or more. Way longer than the typical line up, smile, move on in 10 seconds. Pretty cool moment. The President holding us there to talk for a few moments.


President Carter wasn't our best President by any means, but he has been the best Ex-Persident in my lifetime. He has done wonderful things. He is a decent man with a decent heart. A measurment any of us should hope to have as we pass this life. I'll send you a shot if you want.

Quote:

---

I do not think they should be able to co-opt the term marriage though as I believe marriage to be a religious sacrament before God of a union between husband and wife.

---

So, what about non-Christians getting married?

Their unions are still called "marriage", but they don't share the same god, and don't necessarily share the same views. Should only Christians be allowed to use the term, then?


I think Canada hit on it perfectly..... ANYONE can get married. However, ANYONE can refuse to perform the marriage... and that is perfectly fine. If it is against a religion's beliefs to marry a same-sex couple, then those people shouldn't be seeking a member of that religion's clergy to perform the marriage (and shouldn't be surprised at being rebuked).

The State, however, is whose view matters - not any religion. The State is what recognizes the unions with the term "marriage", therefore it is perfectly acceptable for use. Religion has no bearing in the discussion at all.

Absolutely! Very cool.

I'd say he's done the most to help others after the Presidency than any President than I'm aware of. His work with Habitat for Humanity and others is to be lauded.

I think he's also inserted himself into some current day political issues over the years that I don't think were warranted. And that's lowered his stature to me somewhat.

But I'd love to spend some time with him if the opportunity presented itself.

Shoot em over.